If the creationists here would read it, you could pretty much close down the forum!

Now, back to reality... If the Atheist actually read Ã¢â‚¬Å“I DonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Have Enough Faith To Be An AtheistÃ¢â‚¬Â The would have one of three decisions to make:

1- They would totally ignore ALL the evidences, logic and reasoning, and remain in denial.2- They would see the tight reasoning, logic and evidences, and at least do an honest inquiry.3- They would see the tight reasoning, logic and evidences, and realize the undeniably of these evidences, and give up their religion of atheism. This is likened to what I did, as well as luminaries such as Prof. C.S. Lewis, Dr. Phil Fernandez (etc...)

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a positive belief. We don't have a holy book. But you can prove a negative.

No, that is a misnomer promulgated by atheists so-as not to answer the hard questions. Atheism, by definition, is a belief in the negative. Which is STILL a belief non-the-less. And, where there is a belief, there is faith. And where faith is defended dogmatically, there is religion.

aÃ¢â‚¬Â¢theÃ¢â‚¬Â¢ismShow Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uh m]Ã¢â‚¬â€œnoun1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.Use atheism in a SentenceSee images of atheismSearch atheism on the Web

The truth is inconvenient for you. Atheism quite obviously cannot be classified as a religion. It has no characteristics whatsoever which are associated with any religion.

Hey, way to totally switch the subject so that you didn't have to address my dismantling of your argument. And, of course you are STILL incorrect in so many ways. But, since you brought it up, hereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s something that directly refutes your assertion:

On August 19, 2005 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that atheism should be treated as a Ã¢â‚¬Ëœreligion.

But you do worship it, and you do realize it. It's easy to see also. Besides evolution isn't truth, because if it was, you could show it as plain as day. In each and every post.

Such you have failed to do, and so has every other evolutionist.

Scott, evolution is widely accepted as the truth, even among Christians. The Catholics & Protestants accept it. It is only a small slice of Christianity, together with Islamic Fundamentalists, who reject it.

If you think it's wrong, then show it's wrong - with peer-reviewed mainstream research, otherwise what you are saying is just an opinion. You are entitled to that opinion, and I would defend your right to express it. But it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Scott, evolution is widely accepted as the truth, even among Christians. The Catholics & Protestants accept it. It is only a small slice of Christianity, together with Islamic Fundamentalists, who reject it.

If you think it's wrong, then show it's wrong - with peer-reviewed mainstream research, otherwise what you are saying is just an opinion. You are entitled to that opinion, and I would defend your right to express it. But it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Evolution doesn't amount to a hill of beans, but you already know that. You fail at your attempts to show evolution as true, and yet you claim everyone else who disagrees is stupid, because you and every other evolutionist has failed to show evolution as truth and fact.

Sorry but claiming majority makes right all the time will not hide the fact, that you cannot present the facts. Plus how can I show evolution as wrong, when it hasn't even been shown as right at this moment in time, and history?

Plus if you really wanted to argue about Creation, and defend evolution then you would be doing it in the appropriate threads. While actually addressing the topics of said threads. Which obviously you are not doing.

This is a suggested reading thread, and I suggest that you read the Bible.

Hey, way to totally switch the subject so that you didn't have to address my dismantling of your argument. And, of course you are STILL incorrect in so many ways. But, since you brought it up, hereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s something that directly refutes your assertion:

On August 19, 2005 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that atheism should be treated as a Ã¢â‚¬Ëœreligion.

Hey, way to totally switch the subject so that you didn't have to address my dismantling of your argument. And, of course you are STILL incorrect in so many ways. But, since you brought it up, hereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s something that directly refutes your assertion:

On August 19, 2005 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that atheism should be treated as a Ã¢â‚¬Ëœreligion.

Ron, you are so much deep in denial that you can't even see it.Ã‚Â I'll bet that you won't even acknowledge it.

Oh really, how so? It seems that you are in denial about atheism being "legally" determined as a religion. I have many other lines of evidence for the religiosity of atheism; the one I used here was just a simple and direct refutation to the assertion presented.

Simply because you don't like it doesn't make it untrue. Nor does your ad Hominem abusive against me (due to your lack of an answer to my evidence).

It's not that anyone can deny Occam's Razor on this subject.Ã‚Â They just don't agree with the conclusion that you and i have come to about it.

I agree. Plus, I think William of Ockham had an informally valid argument and it is informally applicable in many reasoning scenarios. However, when it is used in the manner that martemius used it, believing that it should garner intellectual pause, when the paradigms in question are incompatible, slinging out Occam's Razor the way he did only cheapens the discussion.

I guess Marty would have to answer Ron's question now to gain any credibility: